About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
federal government has done the right thing. when ints that somehow suspects have right to counsel miranda warnings causes them to stop cooperating with law enforcement is not facts and studies. and ct, d.o.j. officials senior law enforcement officials 90% of the ou 80% to time in sophisticated cases when defense counsel get involved to help emhis more and icit more information allow the case to go forward. there have been multiple cases 9/11 that have been prosecuted, investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement resulted in more information available to law lawful tools ing without needing to violate rights. senator mentioned graham. he pushed against the decision the combatant status. [video clip] >> i hope the congress will at this case and look at our laws and come to the to.lusion that i have come we are at war. for a going to be at war very long time and we have to have the tools to defend values.es within our one of those tools is the ability to question people about future attacks to gather intelligence for national purposes without benefit of counsel. the information will neve
with the questions out receiving miranda warnings but the only downside is that his statements may not be used against him at trial. this is not much of a risk when you consider the other available evidence including photo images of him at the scene of the bombings and his own reported confession to the victim whose car he helped hijack during the last week's terror in boston. . but if your concern is over the larger threat in who the tsarnaev brothers were and are, what they did and what they represent, then worry a lot. for starters, you you can worry about how the high-value intergage group or h.i.g., will do its work. that unit was finally put in place by the f.b.i. after so-called underwear bomber tried to blow up the airplane in which he was traveling as it flew over detroit on christmas day, 2009. and was advise of his mir and da rights. the c.i.a. interrogation program that might have handleled the interview had by then been dismantled by president obama. at the behest of such muslim brotherhood affiliated groups as the council on american islamic relations, and the islamic society of
he was taken out of the boat. >> no miranda warning could you explain that? >> the fbi may want to explain that in a federal issue. >> had the boat then searched earlier in the day? >> know it had not. rights no miranda warning. >> there is a public safety exemption in cases of national security and potential charges involving acts of terrorism. the government has the opportunity right now, though i believe the suspect has been taken to a hospital. thank you. >> [indiscernible] >> this is still an ongoing investigation. we will be reviewing all of the evidence. before that canada decision is made, in terms of whether or not to seek the death penalty, you review all of the evidence and it is a very thoughtful, on process that is engaged. it is the attorney general of the department of justice that make that final decision. >> [indiscernible] straight to the boat. can you talk about what happens when you are on the scene, was he moving around? how did you know there was a chance to take him into custody ? >> we know he did not go straight to the goat area on the set up a perimete
of the boat. >> no miranda warning, do you want to explain that to us. > that is a federal issue. >> what was the question? >> there was no miranda warning given they were claiming a public safety exception. >> there is a public safety exemption involving acts of terrorism. so the government has the opportunity, right now. i believe that the suspect has been taken to a hospital. thank you. yes? i'm sorry? >> are you going to seek the death penalty? >> this is still an active, ongoing investigation. we're going to be reviewing up of the evidence before that kind of a decision is made in terms of whether or not to seek the death penalty you review all of the evidence and it is a very thoughtful, long process that is engaged and it is the attorney general of the department of justice that makes that final decision. i'm sorry? karen? >> can you talk a little bit about when you were on the scene, was he moving around? how did you know it was a chance to take him into custody? >> we know he did not go straight to the boat. when we set up the perimeter with the best intentions with a lot of info
miranda rights and a lawyer. but we have the right under our law -- i've been a military lawyer for 30 years, to gather intelligence from enemy combatants. and a citizen can be an enemy combatant. he is not eligible for military commission trial. i wrote the military commission in 2009. he cannot go to military commission. >> so a civil trial no matter what. right. >> in my view a civil trial, it should be a federal trial. >> right. and senator schumer, i know you agree this should go to a federal court. i want to quick read you something that one of your colleagues said. this is from senator carl levin, the chairman of the armed services committee. and in response to senator graham and others saying this man needs to be treated as a terrorist, this is what senator levin said. i am not aware of any evidence so far that the boston suspect is part of any organized group let alone al qaeda, the taliban or within of their affiliates. to hold the suspect as an enemy combatant under these circumstances would be contrary to our laws and may even jeopardize our efforts to prosecute him for his
they not have read his miranda rights to him yesterday if that is the case? do you leave the door of legal opportunity open a while longer. >> there are two separate issues. the public safety exception applies regardless of the type of offense that the government is investigating, and using the public safety exception is recognized by the united states supreme court. it's a lawful way of trying to get information in a very short window of time tinge le particularly when you're concerned about public safety issues as the investigators certainly were as a result of the horrific acts that the bombing suspects, the bombing defendants who are h are accused of. bill: this is a guy to lived here more than ten years. came here 2002 if memory serves. your case with richard reid he was far from an american citizen, he was far from even making a home here. what have we done in 12 years? make sure that the prosecutions can be successful? >> i would suggest that we should be using all the tools that both the united states supreme court has indicated are available in order to keep america safe, and all
and he was read his miranda rights and designated to enemy combatants. the son-in-law of osama bin laden is in the federal system today. he was read his rights. he has never been designated enemy combatants. can you imagine what osama bin laden's son-in-law catullus about the terrorist organization? he was the spokesman for al qaeda after 9/11. there's a disturbing pattern here of not gathering intelligence when the opportunity exists. thank you very much. i have to go. to answer next door any questions you have about the fbi. we will observe a moment of silence with the folks in boston. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> stakeholders from various industries and advocacy groups testified on capitol hill about the pros and cons of the senate gang of eight immigration bill. senator mccain, chuck schumer, dick durbin, lindsey graham, robert menendez, marco rubio, jeff blake, and michael bennet are the architects of the legislation. the first witness will be the three-time utah attorney general. a partner in a w
the miranda rights. there is a due process in a battle. it becomes more of a question into eating dinner in the house and then it's an even bigger push into eating dinner in america, in a cafÉ or in your house. that was a huge question but it works all the way back. is a spectrum, and also can go to war in molly or libya under the use of authorization of force that was done for afghanistan? i'll tell you how hard this battle will be. i tried to remove the use of force authorization of force for iraq last year. the war is over that i couldn't even stop the war that is already done. the reason why think it's important to take the use of authorization force back, that's the people's power and congress' power. it's ultimately the people's power through congress, but that power was separated and as long as we have a dangling out there, we have given carte blanche to any president to commit war anytime anywhere. and then there's the debate of whether or not they can infringe upon civil liberties here at home through that force. so no, i don't think we can completely get rid of it. i think wha
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)